... But Who Will Pay The Very High Price?

September 21, 1992

Hartford Health Director Mark A. Mitchell calls lead poisoning the greatest environmental threat facing children. Unlike oil spills, however, there's no single culprit that can be made to pay for the cleanup costs in the lead-poisoning scandal affecting millions of homes across the nation.

Companies that made lead-based paint before it was banned from the market 20 years ago say they didn't know it could cause retardation and deafness. Landlords and homeowners say they can't know, without expensive testing, whether they are putting young children in jeopardy of lead poisoning.

De-leading homes in Connecticut, under new state regulations, could cost about $3,500 per home or apartment, to judge by costs in next-door Massachusetts.

The bill is beyond the reach of many homeowners and landlords with mortgaged property bought in the inflated market of the 1980s. It's also beyond the reach of municipal governments.

To cover its de-leading costs, New York City has sued makers of lead pigment for $50 million in damages, alleging the companies conspired to conceal health hazards.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has begun a de-leading loan program to be administered by states. Connecticut's housing department will have $500,000 in loan money on Jan. 1 for homeowners for lead treatment. (At the going rate, that money should fix just 143 of the estimated 80,000 lead-tainted homes in the state.) Also on Jan. 1, the department will start a de-leading loan program for low-income developers.

None of these programs, however, does enough to help middle-income homeowners and struggling landlords. They will need tax credits and more low-interest loans to make dwellings lead-free.

The lead-paint bill, like the bill to the public from the savings-and-loan scandal, is still in the mail. It will be big when it arrives. Manufacturers, homeowners and government must share the cost